Being a reporter requires a certain cynicism about press releases. After all, whether something is newsworthy can often be determined by gaining the attention of a media outlet. So press officers (who are usually not scientists, and even if they are, they can't be experts in every area of science—no one can be) are under a lot of pressure to hype scientific results, whether they're significant, marginal, or incremental.

That's not inherently a bad thing: small amounts of progress can still be very interesting. And it's how science actually works: big, groundbreaking, paradigm-shifting results are very rare, and usually can only be recognized retrospectively thanks to the smaller, more incremental work of daily research.

However, even my Cary-Grant-in-His-Girl-Friday cynicism was challenged today. I received a press release from the University of Melbourne titled "Big Bang theory challenged by big chill" and it was even more breathless than usual. In fact, the tone of the release felt more like a work of a crackpot than legitimate research: full of grandiose claims about overthrowing well-established science and implicit comparison of the lead researcher to Einstein and ancient Greek philosophers. Even the name of the theory, "quantum graphity," sounded suspiciously like something a crackpot would come up with.

However, the paper itself was published in a legitimate peer-reviewed journal, Physical Review D, which receives a lot of submissions and can afford to be very choosy. So, there was a large disconnect between the wording of the press release and what I would expect from the conservative academic scientific publishing industry. Some of my colleagues on Twitter even questioned whether the whole thing was an elaborate leg-pull, though the balance of evidence was against it. Since my background is in cosmology, I decided to read the paper itself.

What the paper actually says...

The title of the paper is neutral and to the point: "Domain structures in quantum graphity." Nowhere in the paper do the four authors mention overthrowing the Big Bang model; the paper's purpose and methodology are clear. Quantum graphity is a theory motivated by condensed matter physics (the science of materials at high densities), in which the structure of space-time emerges from a lattice-like structure in the very early Universe.

Quantum graphity postulates that certain properties—the number of dimensions of the physical Universe, the finite speed of light, even the continuity of space-time—are emergent, just as electron mass emerges from its interactions with the Higgs field in particle physics. The name "graphity" (a deliberate pun, however terrible, on "gravity") is derived from graph theory, the branch of mathematics dealing with discrete connections between points. In physics, graph theory shows up in several areas as a way to describe interactions of atoms within crystals, among other things (it's also used to model computer networks).

A lot of the ideas in quantum graphity aren't new. A number of theories have been proposed over the years to explain why there are four dimensions (three space, one time) instead of some other number, and others have postulated a fundamental quantum of length, giving space-time a lattice structure. I say this not to dismiss quantum graphity, but to point out that it's less radical than the press release might lead one to believe.

In fact, the whole "crackpot" suspicion disappears in the last sections of the paper: the authors rightly focused on testable consequences of the theory. If the quantum graphity concept is legitimate, then there will be effects on the propagation of light in the early Universe, which may be detectable. Particularly, the bending of light from gravity as predicted by general relativity is slightly different from the effect in quantum graphity. While they perform no particular calculations showing specifically what the consequences of graphity should be in astronomical observations, there should be testable predictions. I await the follow-up papers with interest. The theory will stand or fall on the evidence, after all.

...versus the press coverage

However, you wouldn't know much of that from the press release or the coverage that followed. Something went wrong with the quantum graphity paper, and it's a matter of some concern to all of us that it did.

One issue is a recurring problem: reporters simply repeat the claims in press releases in their articles. That's understandable under most conditions. After all, as with press officers, reporters aren't usually experts in the area of science they're covering, and so wouldn't be able to fully understand the scientific paper. Again, I don't think reporters need to be able to read every scientific paper to be good at their jobs.

But it quickly became clear that other issues were at play. A Syndey (Australia) paper reported the story in the same breathless fashion, apparently taking the press release at its word. However, a careful reading revealed something new: the university press office wasn't ultimately the source of the hype. The lead author of the paper was part of the problem.

In the interview included with the story, author James Q. Quach states things even more strongly than the press release did: the Big Bang model is going to be overthrown by quantum graphity, and cosmology will be rewritten.

Part of the problem is with what he means by the Big Bang, compared with what the term means to most cosmologists. The Big Bang model is a general framework for the expansion of the Universe, the formation of the first atoms, and the evolution of structures that ensued. That general framework is not going to be simply overthrown by any new ideas: it's too well-tested for that, and anything new will have to incorporate elements of the Big Bang in order to make sense of those results.

The very early Universe—the very first fractions of a second after the Big Bang—is indeed still not understood, since we have no established quantum theory of gravity that would describe the moments right after the very beginning. Quantum graphity could be a potential candidate. But, based on this paper, it is far too early to say whether it's viable or not, much less whether it will challenge any widely accepted models such as inflation.

The huge disconnect between what the paper actually says and what the author is promoting in the non-technical press is disturbing. Anyone who didn't read the paper might think it supports what Quach is saying in interviews, and what the university press office passed along unreservedly. Effectively, the author attempted to bypass the peer review process any legitimate scientific paper must go through and appealed straight to the public, presenting claims that probably would not pass muster with experts in the field.

The university press office and many reporters, lacking the know-how to read the original paper, didn't catch this discrepancy. But if they can't understand the science, then they probably shouldn't uncritically pass the author's claims along. Perhaps it's time to be a little more cynical all around, at least when faced with extremely grandiose propositions about overthrowing well-established science.

Promoted Comments

I've been involved in writing many press releases (mostly about Astrophysics), lets get one thing straight. Although the University Press Officer may re-word the text and define the structure of a press release, the scientists involved always have the power of veto over the final product. This is my experience where I work at least, the press releases may be bombastic and overly simplified versions of a real science result, but they never lie, they only seek to provide information that is digestible by the public.

I guess what I'm trying to say here is: If you read a bad press release on a scientific result, blame the scientists, not the press officers. I say this as a scientist.

This is what I absolutely hate about the media reporting that tries to compact EVERYTHING into 30/60 second bites. I don't know why the compression causes an innate desire for reporters to then consequently over-exaggerate everything.

Somewhere in the past century, people have forgotten how science works; it's an iterative and revisionist process. When did people begin to think that Science is always right, and that it's a big affair when it's wrong? You're right, when the science is wrong, it is a big affair, but only because the science is then on the verge of being replaced with something better. Something that has been shown through the same scientific process to be a better answer.

We should be delighted when the science ends up being wrong, because it's then a promise that our understanding of that field is going to become clearer and greater. Instead, the only times I hear people talking about when the science is wrong is either to take a stab at science/the scientists, or to fallaciously consider it grounds to implement inferior ideas (ID, YEC, the works).

Somewhere in the past century, people have forgotten how science works/rant

I wouldn't say that. It's probably more along the lines of: Somewhere in the past century, science has been served up to a ever-growing percentage of the population due to the abundance of new communication methods. When this happens, the information getting sent out has to play a popularity game, which isn't exactly the best thing for science.

I've been involved in writing many press releases (mostly about Astrophysics), lets get one thing straight. Although the University Press Officer may re-word the text and define the structure of a press release, the scientists involved always have the power of veto over the final product. This is my experience where I work at least, the press releases may be bombastic and overly simplified versions of a real science result, but they never lie, they only seek to provide information that is digestible by the public.

I guess what I'm trying to say here is: If you read a bad press release on a scientific result, blame the scientists, not the press officers. I say this as a scientist.

I get that science reporters are generally non-specialists and under time pressures etc. but surely a press release claiming to overturn one of the most famous theories in all of physics should have set off alarm bells in even the most lazy of reporters brains?

Two comments:1. Whoever thought using "graphity" as a scientific term was a good idea needs a slap in the head, not for the bad pun, but for the lack of clarity it will introduce when used with different accents and in different contexts.

2. Is that pic manipulated at all? That's a stunning vista of galaxies. I'd assume it was pulled from the hubble site; if so, link please. I'd like a higher res version.

(who are usually not scientists, and even if they are, they can't be experts in every area of science—no one can be)

I just wish to address this misconception specifically. All scientists are experts in the field of climate change, with the exception of actual climate scientists who unfortunatly studied a 'soft science' that is on the edge of something along the lines of a liberal arts degree. As a result, not only can all other scientists make declarations about the state of climate change research, but they are all inherently more authoritative than actual climate researchers.

So your statement is true for virtually all fields of science, but there is that notable exception. I would not want the geologists, physicists and others providing strong statements about climate change to think that we have forgotten that thier opinion is more accurate than climate scientists conclusions or anything.

Two comments:1. Whoever thought using "graphity" as a scientific term was a good idea needs a slap in the head, not for the bad pun, but for the lack of clarity it will introduce when used with different accents and in different contexts.

2. Is that pic manipulated at all? That's a stunning vista of galaxies. I'd assume it was pulled from the hubble site; if so, link please. I'd like a higher res version.

The credit link goes to NASA's copy, which looks identical. I imagine you could find more info on their Site somewhere.

Pro Tip: If you have google images open in one tab (firefox anyway) and a picture in question in the other, you can click/hold the picture, hover over Google images tab to open said tab, and drop the picture into the query bar (it will open up and say 'drop image here'). I tend to do that a lot to follow up on interesting graphics.

The Big Bang model is a general framework for the expansion of the Universe, the formation of the first atoms, and the evolution of structures that ensued. That general framework is not going to be simply overthrown by any new ideas: it's too well-tested for that, and anything new will have to incorporate elements of the Big Bang in order to make sense of those results.

The very early Universe—the very first fractions of a second after the Big Bang—is indeed still not understood, since we have no established quantum theory of gravity that would describe the moments right after the very beginning.

Not to be rude, but how is that any less thoughtful than the press-release being (rightly) blasted? "...it's too well-tested"... except... well, it doesn't really work all-the-way. While the 'lead author' is presumptuous, to be sure, it doesn't/won't take much to alter Big Bang Theory when it is built on assumptions that do not work for "the moments right after the very beginning."

The author is pitting theory against theory - not theory/presumption against "facts". It's not bad-science to say "These experiments work given the following assumptions: [list of assumptions] These assumptions are currently held to be very-probable by the scientific community so we're using them here as well."

When we stopped doing that, then most theories became 'facts' by the hands of scientists, not press officers. The fault is us scientists - the press are just following along (albeit partly uniformed as well!)

There's a NASA link at the bottom of the picture next to the camera icon. It doesn't provide any details, but it does provide a much higher-res version.

Ah, thank you. I saw the link but was lazy and assumed it would just go to their general site. That's what I get for not hovering. The larger version has artifacts that make it appear it's a composite. Still cool though.

Pro Tip: If you have google images open in one tab (firefox anyway) and a picture in question in the other, you can click/hold the picture, hover over Google images tab to open said tab, and drop the picture into the query bar (it will open up and say 'drop image here'). I tend to do that a lot to follow up on interesting graphics.

Oh that's awesome. I was aware of tineye but am generally too lazy to use it.

Two comments:1. Whoever thought using "graphity" as a scientific term was a good idea needs a slap in the head, not for the bad pun, but for the lack of clarity it will introduce when used with different accents and in different contexts.

Agree. Never let scientists or programmers name anything.

GIMPBobSonic_Hedgehogand many etc.

Tom Brokaw wrote:

2. Is that pic manipulated at all? That's a stunning vista of galaxies. I'd assume it was pulled from the hubble site; if so, link please. I'd like a higher res version.

We get it. Entanglement is weird, but it can't send information faster than light, so it's not really an exception to relativity. And CERN's cable was loose in the much-bandied neutrino experiment.

And to anyone who wants a good laugh, open up the last link and you'll be treated to a claim that telomere shortening from radiation exposure in spaceflight ages you prematurely, and thus "proves Einstein wrong"

Journalists are idiots, and it's about time we all started to tell them so.

I get that science reporters are generally non-specialists and under time pressures etc. but surely a press release claiming to overturn one of the most famous theories in all of physics should have set off alarm bells in even the most lazy of reporters brains?

Meh, I've noticed that in most media orgs don't even have generalists for science and technology (prob why apple is always plastered everywhere), business, arts even bloody cooking they'll have someone, but science?

Journalists are just *dying* to write headlines like 'Big Bang Theory Disproven'. I routinely come across the headline "Was Einstein Wrong" three times before breakfast. Here's a short list:

Journalists are idiots, and it's about time we all started to tell them so.

[some] Journalists are idiots. Some scientists are idiots. Seems to be pretty much the default condition for humans.

NASA, especially, has some work to do. I am reminded of the flurry of nonsense precipitated by their breathless claims that they found a 'new' DNA backbone chemical - which would be really a major dogma change. Interestingly that mess was *also* worsened by scientists who were a bit too quick on the trigger to push their own agendas.

But the nice thing about all this is that it's pretty much self correcting - the Arsenic critter people got slapped down and told to go back to the lab, this guy will be told to shut up and do some more research. A few feathers will be ruffled, a few electrons inconvenienced, but no real harm done.

Thank you for clearing up just what "graphity" was however you almost waited too long into the article. I was having a strange sensation like I was reading British spellings (like colour) for a word but was feeling really foolish that I'd never come across that particular alternate spelling before.

While I will admit to never actually wondering who had final say over press releases, it doesn't surprise me to learn that even scientists are prone to overstating the contributions of their work to soundbyte-able theories. It has to factor into their funding.

Thank you for clearing up just what "graphity" was however you almost waited too long into the article. I was having a strange sensation like I was reading British spellings (like colour) for a word but was feeling really foolish that I'd never come across that particular alternate spelling before.

I know, right? I'm thinking, man, Australia isn't usually that weird on spellings, is it?

The real graphity was far funnier. Like a Douglas Adams theory. Zaphod's next ship will be powered by a quantum protractor.

Journalists are just *dying* to write headlines like 'Big Bang Theory Disproven'. I routinely come across the headline "Was Einstein Wrong" three times before breakfast. Here's a short list:

Journalists are idiots, and it's about time we all started to tell them so.

[some] Journalists are idiots. Some scientists are idiots. Seems to be pretty much the default condition for humans.

It's pretty easy to pull out the idiot judgement and move on. I do it myself far to often. However if you take a moment to study the motivations behind the proposed idiocy you'll get a clearer picture or what happened.

Mainstream journalists aren't measured on how accurate their reporting percentages are over time. They are rewarded for creating content that draws in browsers. Hyperbole and breathless reporting generate more hits in the short term than academically accurate papers do.

Popular press is a snapshot of what is happening pretty darn close to right now. It is short term by nature. True science is generally slow moving and exacting by nature. Not a good fit for the popular press.

Maybe we should all agree not to rely on the popular press for our scientific learning.

It would be really interesting if the early universe could be simulated via condensed matter. I wonder if that would entail some kind of fractal geometry for the universe? I am intrigued enough to go read the paper after reading the Ars article but would never have read it based on the the press release. The irony!

I don't know how it happened, but somehow society has made science its bitch, and includes the scientists themselves. Btw, I'm sorry about the unsophisticated expression of my sentiment. But try arguing with it...

There are 2 problems with science journalism:a) The general public doesn't get science at all, because it's highly non-intuitive to untrained brains.b) Science journalists ARE the general public, as opposed to being scientists, or having any of their sine qua non abilities.

There is one solution, AFAIK: Science journalism must come from people who are scientists first and journalists second. Because science is simply HARDER than journalism.

A suitable corrolary to this problem is training programmers to write software for Flight Simulators: the FS manufacturers quickly realized that pilots have more highly-specialized skills than programmers do, so instead of teaching flying to existing computer programmers, they knew they had to teach computer programming to existing pilots. And that's a good thing - we'd have more plane crashes if it were done the other way. So it matters.

There are 2 problems with science journalism:a) The general public doesn't get science at all, because it's highly non-intuitive to untrained brains.b) Science journalists ARE the general public, as opposed to being scientists, or having any of their sine qua non abilities.

I'm sorry but your second point is unfair. Many science journalists are scientists and former scientists. The problem lies in the fact that presenting science results (which are increasingly intangible) to the general public is very hard thing to do. Most scientists are not good journalists or even good at explaining their results to a non-layman.

I have the greatest respect for science journalists, it's a difficult job, and not always done well admittedly, but that's because it's a tough job.

Pro Tip: If you have google images open in one tab (firefox anyway) and a picture in question in the other, you can click/hold the picture, hover over Google images tab to open said tab, and drop the picture into the query bar (it will open up and say 'drop image here'). I tend to do that a lot to follow up on interesting graphics.

Okay, *THAT* is the coolest thing I have seen all day^h^h^h week! Thanks for the tip.

There are 2 problems with science journalism:a) The general public doesn't get science at all, because it's highly non-intuitive to untrained brains.b) Science journalists ARE the general public, as opposed to being scientists, or having any of their sine qua non abilities.

I'm sorry but your second point is unfair. Many science journalists are scientists and former scientists. The problem lies in the fact that presenting science results (which are increasingly intangible) to the general public is very hard thing to do. Most scientists are not good journalists or even good at explaining their results to a non-layman.

I have the greatest respect for science journalists, it's a difficult job, and not always done well admittedly, but that's because it's a tough job.

Part of the problem is that many scientists aren't as brilliant as the general public ( or sometimes they themselves) think they are. They're smart, but very specialized, which is why they can do their job. We expect more of them because we think anyone who is a college prof must be some form of uber genius, not just someone who got there from hard work and surviving the system.

The main part of the problem is there's basically no requirement to be able to communicate to anyone who doesn't share a given field's jargon. Unis and Colleges just put no emphasis on that. But for people like Hawking, Sagan, de Grasse, etc, we'd have little clue on what happened in physics.

But you'll hear plenty of bitching about how there's not enough cross-field collaboration in research. That's there in spades.

Pro Tip: If you have google images open in one tab (firefox anyway) and a picture in question in the other, you can click/hold the picture, hover over Google images tab to open said tab, and drop the picture into the query bar (it will open up and say 'drop image here'). I tend to do that a lot to follow up on interesting graphics.

Okay, *THAT* is the coolest thing I have seen all day^h^h^h week! Thanks for the tip.

Somewhere in the past century, people have forgotten how science works/rant

I wouldn't say that. It's probably more along the lines of: Somewhere in the past century, science has been served up to a ever-growing percentage of the population due to the abundance of new communication methods. When this happens, the information getting sent out has to play a popularity game, which isn't exactly the best thing for science.

Human beings a century ago were not all scientific gurus.

Agreed completely. First there was print, radio, TV now the Internet following the progression of the "speed of time" the communication is not only reaching farther and faster exponentially but seems to be growing in sensationalism at the same rate. On the upside so is cynicism probably to counteract such forces.

That I'm sure is a published paper somewhere. If it's not, I think that study hasn't been done in a while and probably needs to be revisited.

The armchair psychologist in me wonders whether this first author is an well established scientist with less to prove or some tenure track newby, PhD candidiate, or postdoc looking to generate media interest, notwithstanding the fact that what Rupert's media publishes has little effect on employment decisions in science. I hope.In addition to the fact that science is now more widely disseminated and seems to create these situations, it never ceases to amaze me that scientists today frequently fall into this superstar wannabe track. Never saw that much back in the day. (My day was 40+years ago)